DECISION

 

Cloud Whale Interactive Technology LLC v. Ramil

Claim Number: FA2607002234853

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Cloud Whale Interactive Technology LLC ("Complainant"), represented by RiKaleigh Omosheyin of K&L Gates LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Ramil ("Respondent"), Argentina.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <polybuzze.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 24, 2026; Forum received payment on July 24, 2026.

 

On July 28, 2026, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <polybuzze.com> Domain Name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On August 4, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 24, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@polybuzze.com. Also on August 4, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On August 25, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.       Complainant

 

The Complainant is a private technology company that develops AI-powered software, especially conversational AI products. It has built a strong reputation as a leading provider of chatbot and digital entertainment services. Its most popular product is

POLYBUZZ, an AI character chat app that allows users to roleplay with AI characters or create their own custom personas. POLYBUZZ is available on the web, iOS, and Android, offering a free version alongside optional paid subscriptions. It is designed for entertainment-

focused conversations with AI characters through roleplay and storytelling. The platform features a library of more than 20 million community-created characters, ranging from anime and fantasy

personalities to completely original creations.

 

The POLYBUZZ mark was first used in connection with the platform in November 2024. The Complaint advertises and sells its AI conversation chatbot services and related goods through its website at the domain name <polybuzz.ai>. Since at least as early as November 2024, the Complainant has continuously used the POLYBUZZ mark in connection with its AI-powered chat services and related goods.

 

As of June 2026, the POLYBUZZ platform has more than 6 million daily active users and more than 20 million community-created characters. Between March 2025 and May 2026, the website located at <polybuzz.ai> received more than 530 million visits. The POLYBUZZ mobile application has achieved more than 50 million downloads and

over 1 million user reviews on Google Play and is ranked among the leading entertainment applications on Apple's App Store.

 

The POLYBUZZ platform and the Complainant's goods and services have received third-party recognition and unsolicited media attention, including being ranked among the Top 50 Generative AI Web Products and Top 50 Generative AI Mobile Applications published by Andreessen Horowitz and discussed by Core Nexis in an article titled Why PolyBuzz (Poly AI) is the Top AI Roleplay App in 2025. The Complainant maintains a significant social media presence in connection with the POLYBUZZ mark across Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, with 35,000 followers on Instagram, 189,000 followers on TikTok, and 55,000 subscribers on YouTube.

 

The Complainant registered the <polybuzz.ai> domain name in or about October 2024. Since the launch of the POLYBUZZ platform in November 2024, the domain has functioned as the primary web address for the POLYBUZZ platform, through which users access the platform and

its services. The Complainant has invested significant resources in developing and promoting the POLYBUZZ platform and the POLYBUZZ mark. To date, the Complainant has spent $10 Million on

advertising and marketing related to the POLYBUZZ mark and platform. The Complainant has generated over $20 Million in revenue from sales and subscriptions related to the POLYBUZZ platform since its launch in November 2024.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2026 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's adding only the letter 'e' and the gTLD .com neither of which prevents said confusing similarity.

 

The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.

 

The Domain Name has been used for competing AI chatbot services and has redirected to an adult entertainment site. The Respondent's site uses the e mail address support@polybuzz.ai which cannot work as it is the Complainant's domain, but is confusing.  Consumers have been confused into thinking the Respondent's site was associated with the Complainant.

 

The Respondent's use is not a bona fide offering of services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. The Domain Name has been registered and used in opportunistic bad faith to take advantage of the Complainant's trade mark to confuse Internet users for commercial gain and to disrupt the Complainant's business. The Complainant owns Polybuzz.com (which redirects to polybuzz.ai). The Domain Name differs from the Complainant's polybuzz.com domain name by one letter 'e' and is a typosquatting registration. Typosquatting is bad faith per se.

 

The Respondent has used a false address for the Domain Name's data registration details which is also an indication of lack of legitimacy and registration and use in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant has common law rights in the name POLYBUZZ for AI chat services having used it extensively since 2024. It owns <polybuzz.ai> and <polybuzz.com>.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2026 offers competing AI chat services and has redirected to adult entertainment sites. It uses the e mail address support@polybuzz.ai on its web site which cannot work as it uses the Complainant's url. There is evidence that consumers have been confused by the Respondent's site.

 

The Respondent has given a false address for the data registration details for the Domain Name.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name in this Complaint combines the Complainant's mark POLYBUZZ (in which the Complainant owns common law rights due to extensive use since 2024) with the letter 'e' and the gTLD .com.

 

An additional letter and a gTLD do not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See ModCloth, Inc. v. James McAvoy, FA 1629102 (Forum Aug. 16, 2015) ("The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it differs from Complainant's mark by merely adding the letter 'L' . . . ") See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).

 

Using a Domain Name for competing services not connected with the Complainant is commercial and so cannot be non commercial legitimate fair use, and is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. (See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin, FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise real estate services which competed with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.). 

 

The Domain Name has been used for adult entertainment services. The use of a domain name containing a third party trade mark to resolve to material of an adult sexual nature is not a bona fide use. See Altria Group, Inc. and Altria Group Distribution Company v xiazihong, FA 1732665 (Forum July 7, 2017).  See also Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent's use of the complainant's LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent's own website for commercial gain does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). 

 

The Domain Name is also intended to be a typosquatting registration differing by one letter from the Complainant's <polybuzz.com> domain. Typosquatting is also an indication of a lack of rights or a legitimate interest. See Macy's Inc. and its subsidiary Macy's West Stores, Inc. v. chen wenjie c/o Dynadot Privacy, FA 1552918 (Forum May 21, 2014) ("Respondent's disputed domain names are typosquatted versions of Complainant's registered mark. Typosquatting shows a lack of rights or legitimate interests.").

 

The Respondent has not answered the Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein.

 

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent's site is confusing and disruptive and there is evidence that visitors to the Respondent's site have reasonably believed it is connected to or approved by the Complainant.  The Respondent's site offers competing services under a Domain Name containing the Complainant's mark which has a reputation for AI chatbot services. The use of the Complainant's url polybuzz.ai on the Respondent's site in a false email address shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its rights, business and services.

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site and services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. (See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs, FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to advertise car dealerships that competed with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of those competing dealerships and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use).

 

Use of the Domain Name which contains the Complainant's trade mark with a reputation in relation to a web page hosting material of an adult sexual nature is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy 4 (b)(iii). See Molson Canada 2005 v JEAN LUCAS/DOMCHARME GROUP, FA 1596702 (Forum Feb 10, 2015).

 

Further the Respondent has used false address details for the Domain Name data registration details. Providing false information at the time of a domain name's registration is generally evidence of respondent's bad faith registration and use under Policy 4(a)(iii). See Farouk Systems, Inc. v. Jack King / SLB, FA 1618704 (Forum June 19, 2015) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where the respondent had provided false contact information when registering the disputed domain name).

 

Typosquatting (as found above) is an indication of bad faith per se. See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sept. 7, 2018) ("Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use.").

 

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <polybuzze.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: August 25, 2026